Most Crypto Assets Confirmed As Non-Securities By SEC And CFTC In New Guidance

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-03-17Última atualização em 2026-03-17

Resumo

In a significant regulatory development, the US SEC and CFTC have issued joint guidance clarifying that the majority of crypto assets are not securities. This long-awaited move aims to end over a decade of uncertainty by providing a clear framework for digital tokens under federal securities laws. The guidance establishes a detailed taxonomy, categorizing assets as digital commodities, collectibles, tools, stablecoins, or securities. It explains how token classification can change over time and addresses the application of securities rules to activities like airdrops, staking, and mining. Both agencies encourage market participants to review the interpretation to understand regulatory jurisdiction.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Tuesday issued joint guidance that clarifies how federal securities laws apply to many crypto assets, a move aimed at ending years of regulatory uncertainty.

The agencies said the interpretation makes clear that the bulk of digital tokens are not securities, while laying out how certain transactions and token evolutions can bring them within, or remove them from, securities regulation.

Clarity After A Decade Of Crypto Uncertainty

In the official release, the SEC framed the guidance as a milestone in its effort to provide clearer rules for market participants and to complement ongoing Congressional work to codify a comprehensive market-structure framework.

“After more than a decade of uncertainty, this interpretation will provide market participants with a clear understanding of how the Commission treats crypto assets under federal securities laws,” SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins said.

Chair Atkins added that the interpretation recognizes something the previous administration did not fully acknowledge: most crypto assets are not securities.

The guidance also acknowledges that investment-contract status can end — a point Atkins said will help entrepreneurs and investors while Congress advances bipartisan market-structure legislation (CLARITY Act).

The CFTC joined the SEC’s interpretation and signaled it will administer the Commodity Exchange Act in a manner consistent with the SEC’s approach. Together, the agencies provided a more detailed taxonomy to help classify digital assets and the activities that surround them.

Fresh Classification Framework

Key elements of the interpretation include a structured token taxonomy that separates digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities.

This categorization is intended to reduce ambiguity about which regulatory regime applies to different types of tokens and, by extension, to the platforms and services that handle them.

The guidance also addresses the dynamic nature of token classification. It clarifies how a “non-security crypto asset” — defined as a crypto asset that is not itself a security — may become subject to securities rules, and how it may cease to be treated as an investment contract over time.

The interpretation further explains how federal securities laws apply to airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking, and the practice of “wrapping” a non-security crypto asset. The statement concludes:

Market participants—from innovators and issuers to individual investors—should review this interpretation to better understand the regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC. The interpretation will be published on SEC.gov and in the Federal Register.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.5 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main purpose of the joint guidance issued by the SEC and CFTC?

AThe joint guidance aims to end years of regulatory uncertainty by clarifying how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, providing clear rules for market participants, and complementing ongoing Congressional work on market-structure legislation.

QAccording to the guidance, how are most crypto assets classified?

AThe guidance confirms that most crypto assets are not securities, providing a clear classification that separates them from digital securities under federal securities laws.

QWhat key elements are included in the new token taxonomy framework?

AThe new taxonomy framework categorizes digital assets into digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities to reduce ambiguity about which regulatory regime applies.

QHow does the guidance address the dynamic nature of token classification?

AIt clarifies how a non-security crypto asset may become subject to securities rules or cease to be treated as an investment contract over time, acknowledging that investment-contract status can change.

QWhat specific crypto-related activities does the interpretation explain in relation to federal securities laws?

AThe interpretation explains how federal securities laws apply to airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking, and the practice of 'wrapping' a non-security crypto asset.

Leituras Relacionadas

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) kept its benchmark interest rate at 1% on July 31, as widely expected, following a June hike to a 31-year high. The decision passed with an 8-1 vote, with board member Hajime Takata again dissenting in favor of a hike to 1.25%. Despite holding rates steady, the BOJ signaled a hawkish tilt, warning that underlying inflation is likely to accelerate and exceed 2% from the latter half of the fiscal year. While it slightly lowered its core inflation forecast for FY2026, officials expressed stronger confidence that an overshoot will occur later, driven by yen weakness, corporate pricing behavior, and lingering energy shock effects. Markets were focused on the BOJ's forward guidance. Analysts noted the central bank appeared to balance short-term caution with a long-term warning of tighter policy. Governor Kazuo Ueda faces the challenge of reconciling a government reluctant to tighten further with bond markets already pricing in additional hikes, with the timing of the next move debated. Adding complexity, the BOJ reportedly intervened in currency markets hours before the rate decision, buying yen to support the currency which had fallen to 40-year lows against the dollar. Yen weakness stems from the wide U.S.-Japan interest rate gap, high fuel prices, and market skepticism about the pace of BOJ policy normalization. The yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds fell to 2.8%, indicating investor expectations for future monetary tightening.

cryptonews.ruHá 7m

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

cryptonews.ruHá 7m

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbitHá 14m

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbitHá 14m

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbitHá 24m

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbitHá 24m

Trading

Spot
活动图片